ASSIGNMENT ON DAV COLLEGE ETC VS STATE OF

PUNJAB & ORS

Submitted to- submitted by-

Dr. P.k. Das Manish kumar
Faculty, Legal method BBALLB
School of law and governance 1 st semester
Central University of south Bihar Enrollment no:-
CUSB2413144043
Session-2024-2029

1
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I would like to express my thanks and gratitude to our faculty of Legal method Dr. P.K. Das for providing me
the chance to work on This particular assignment on “DAV college etc vs State of Punjab & ors.”. I am obliged
to thank our faculty of the respective subject to provide Me with the necessary support required while making
this assignment and mentoring me throughout the assignment. I get to learn many Things while researching
for this assignment and the whole journey was Quite interesting and indeed knowledgeable that I dived deeper
to seek More information related to the topic. I would not have been able to complete this assignment without
the Help of my friends, colleagues and my family members, so I would like to express my thanks and gratitude
towards them as well.

Manish Kumar
BBA.LLB
1st SEMESTER

2
 DECLARATION

I hereby declare that the work reported and the research done in the process of making this assignment on the
case “DAV college etc vs State of punjab & ors.”, is done in good faith and it is an authentic Record of my
work carried out under the guidance of our faculty Dr. P.K. Das I have not submitted this assignment elsewhere
and I take Responsibility of my work carried out while completing the assignment.

Manish Kumar
BBA.LLB
1st SEMESTER

3
 Contents

S.no. Tiltle Page.no.

1. Introduction 5

2. Fact of the case 6

3. Issues of the case 7

4. Petitioner’s and respondent arguments 7- 8

5. Precedent cases 9

6. Judgement of the case 9-10

7. Conclusion 10-11

8. Bibliography 12

TABLE OF CASES

S.NO. Name of the related cases

1. Kerala education bill case

2. State of Bombay vs Bombay education society

3. Gujarat University vs Krishna Rajnath Mudholkar

4. R. Chitralekha vs State of mysore

4
 INTRODUCTION
DAV college etc vs State of Punjab & ors on 5 May 1971,
(citations: 1971 AIR 1737, 1971 SCR 688)
Petitioner: DAV college etc
Respondent: State of Punjab & ors
Bench: P. Jaganmohan reddy, S.M. sikri, G.K. Mittar, K.S. Hegde, A.N. grover
Act:-
Constitution of India, Arts 29(1), 30(1), 19 and 14.-Guru
Nanak University (Amritsar) Act (21 of 1969)-Sections 4(2),
(3), 5, cls. 2(1) (a) 17 and 18 of Statutes-If violative of
The constitutional guarantees- Religious minority,
Determination-Arya Samajis, if religious minority.
Constitution of India, Art. 32- Questions of legislative
Competence, agitation of.
This case includes religious minorities, medium of instruction, protection of minority institutions, and aid to
educational institutions.1
The D.A.V. College, Jullundur vs. State of Punjab case in 1971 is a landmark judgement that addressed the
issue of the autonomy of minority educational institutions and the extent to which the state can regulate their
functioning. The case examined the constitutional validity of state regulations affecting the administration of
a minority-run educational institution under Article 30(1) of the Indian Constitution.

5
 Fact of the case-

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by P. Jaganmohan Reddy, J. These two Writ Petitions under Article
32 challenge the vires and constitutionality of Sections 4(2) and 5 of the Punjabi University Act 35 of 1961 as
amended (hereinafter called “the University” or “the Act”, as the case may be). It is also prayed that (i) the
Notification of the Punjab Government No. 5592-ED- 1(2E)/59/12447 dated 13-5-1969 extending the area in
which the University shall exercise its powers and (ii) the Circular of the University No. 8617-8661 /GS/Misc.
dated 15- 6-70 679 as modified by Circular No. 9866-989G/DSG dated 2-7-70 enclosing the decision of the
Senate Sub-Committee dated 1-7-70 be quashed as being illegal, unconstitutional and void.

The Petitioners are educational institutions founded by, D. A. V. College Trust and Society registered under
the Societies Registration Act as an association’ comprised of Arya samajis. These Colleges were affiliated
to the Punjab University before the reorganisation of the State of Punjab in 1966. The University had been
constituted in ‘1961 and by a Notification dated June 30, 1962, it was given jurisdiction over a radius of 10
miles from the office of the University at Patiala which seat had earlier been notified on 30-4-1962 as a Seat
of the University. As the Writ Petitioners were not within the 10 miles radius of the University, they continued
to be affiliated to the Punjab University. After the reorganisation the Punjab Government by Notification dated
13-5-1969 issued under sub-section (1) of section 5 of the act the Districts of Patiala, Sangrur, Bhatinda and
Rupar as the areas in which the University exercised its power and under sub-section (3) of the said Section,
30th June 1969 was notified as the date for the purpose of the said Section. The effect of this Notification was
that the Petitioners were deemed to be associated with and admitted to the privileges of the University and
ceased to be associated in any way with or to be admitted to any privileges of the Punjab University. It may
also be mentioned that the Central Government by a Notification dated 12-09-197 in exercise of the powers
conferred on it by Section 72 of the Reorganisation Act directed that the Punjab University constituted under
the Punjab University act 1947 shall cease to function and operate in the areas of the very four Districts
regarding which the Punjab Government had earlier issued a Notification under Section 5 of the Act.

6
 Issues of the case-

. The major issues raised in the case of DAV college Etc vs. State of Punjab & ors are:-

• Wheather the Hindus of the state of Punjab will be considered a minority community?
• What determines a ‘ religious or linguistic minorities ‘?

The DAV College case determined whether Hindus in the state of Punjab constituted a religious
minority. The petitioners argued that certain provisions of the Gurunanak University Act violated their
constitutional rights to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice as a minority
community.

Petitioner ‘s arguments –
B.Datta, S. Swarup, J. B. Dadachanji, O. C. Mathur and Ravinder Narain, for petitioners (in W. P. Nos. 258 to
265, 267 and 268 of 1970) 692 Naunit Lal, B. Datta, J. B. Dadachanji, O. C. Mathur and Ravinder Narain, for
the petitioners (in W. P. Nos. 266 and 271 of 1970).

It is now to be ascertained whether any of the provisions of the Act, statutes or Ordinances offend the
guaranteed rights of the petitioners. The petitioners contend that sub- sections (2) and (3) of Section 4 directly
infringe the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 29(1) and 30(1) of the Constitution. Under these
provisions the Arya Samaj through its educational institutions have the right to conserve its script, culture and
its language. Sub-section (2) of the act, it is submitted enacts a provision for making it imperative to study
and conduct research on the life and teachings of Guru Nanak and their cultural and religious impact on
Indian and World civilizations while sub-section (3) contemplates the adopting of measures for the study of
Punjabi language literature and culture which provisions according to the petitioners directly aim at
strangulating the growth of Hindi while encouraging the growth of Punjabi. Their apprehension is that Punjabi
with Gurmukhi script will be made the sole medium of instruction in the University and that all Colleges
affiliated to this University may be forced to impart education through that medium. The State of Punjab in
its counter denied that the provisions of sub-section (2) and (3) of section 4 seek to strangulate the
development and growth of Hindi language. It is stated that there is nothing in these provisions which offends
the religious susceptibilities of the Petitioners nor can the provision for the promotion of and research in
Punjabi language, literature and culture in the State of Punjab, which has as its declared policy the adoption
of Punjabi as the sole language of the Punjabi speaking area, be construed as offending the rights of the
minorities. The second Respondent the2 University traversed the Petitioners allegations on grounds similar to
those taken by the State of Punjab except that it was further stated that Respondent 3 the University of Punjab
has also set up a Guru Nanak
Chair and that the Punjab Government has offered to set up Guru Nanak Chairs in the Universities of Calcutta,
Dharwar, Madras, Kurushetra, Bombay as also in the Khalsa College, Amritsar.

2
https//indiankanoon.com
7
It is contended that these provisions interfere with the Petitioners in the management of their institutions, is
that the Colleges are required to constitute a regular governing body for each of them, of not more than 20
persons to be approved by the University Senate. Of these, two representatives of the University and the
Principal of the College are to be ex-officio members. According to the Petitioners the Managing Committee
of their institution is composed of 24 members under the D. A. V. College Trust and Management Society
registered under the societies registration act (Act 21 of 1960). It will be observed that under clause 1(3) if
the petitioners do not comply with the requirements under l(a) their affiliation is liable to be withdrawn.
Similarly it is stated that clause 17 also interferes with the petitioners right to administer their College as the
appointment of all the staff has to be approved by the Vice-Chancellor and that subsequent changes will also
have to be reported to the University for Vice Chancellor’s approval. We have already held that the Petitioners
institutions .are established by a religious minority and therefore under Article .30 this minority has the right
to administer their educational institutions according to their choice. Clauses 2(1) (a) and 17 of ,Chapter V in
our view certainly interferes with that right. In the case of Kerala education bill(1) dealing with article 30(1)
this Court observed that:

“The key to the understanding of the true meaning and implication of the Article under consideration are the
words “of their own choice”. It is said that the dominant word is “choice” and the content of that Article is as
wide as the choice of the particular minority community may make it. The ambit of the rights conferred by
Aarticle 30(1) has therefore to be determined on a consideration of the matter from the points of view of the
educational institutions themselves”.

Respondent’s arguments –
The respondent arguments in the DAV College etc. vs State of Punjab case were presented by Mrs. S.K. Bhatia,
the learned Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. She supported the action of the respondent, arguing that the
petitioner had violated certain conditions mentioned in the circular dated 8.6.1999, which prescribed the
procedure for admission ¹.
Specifically, she contended that the petitioner had filled seats reserved for candidates from within the State of
Punjab with students from outside, despite there being enough applicants from within the state to fill those
seats. She emphasized that the petitioner should have kept those seats unfilled and followed the procedure
outlined in condition No. 6 of the circular, which required admission to those seats to be done at the level of
the head office after advertising in newspapers ¹.3
Additionally, she pointed out that the petitioner had failed to put the list of unfilled seats trade-wise on the
notice board along with the list of selected candidates, as required by condition No. 13 of the circular.

3
https//indiankanoon.com
8
 Precedent cases-

The judgment extensively referenced key precedents that shaped its reasoning:

• State Of Bombay v. Bombay Education Society (1954): The Court emphasized that prohibiting the
admission of students to minority institutions based on language would violate Articles 29(1) and
30(1), which safeguard minority rights to education in their own language.

• Gujarat University v. Krishna Ranganath Mudholkar (1963): Highlighted the distinction between
Union and State legislative powers, affirming that educational standards and medium of instruction
fall under the Union’s purview when they affect national coordination.

• R. Chitralekha v. State Of Mysore (1964):Reinforced the dominance of Union legislation over State
laws in matters where both have concurrent jurisdiction, especially concerning educational standards
and research.

Judgement of the case-

In the 1971 case D.A.V. College Bhatinda v. State of Punjab, the Supreme Court (SC) ruled on several issues,
including:
Religious minority
The SC ruled that Hindus in Punjab were a religious minority, and that the Arya Samaj were part of that
minority. The court rejected the argument that Hindus could not be a religious minority in Punjab because they
were a majority in India.
Minority educational rights
The SC ruled that the Punjabi University’s circulars and notifications mandating Punjabi as the sole medium
of instruction and examination for affiliated colleges violated the rights of minorities. The court struck down
these circulars and notifications, declaring them unconstitutional.
Right to choose medium of instruction
The SC ruled that the right to choose the medium of instruction is guaranteed under Article 30(1) of the
Constitution. The court also ruled that this right applies to institutions established before and after the
Constitution.
Protections for minority institutions
The SC ruled that the petitioners’ institutions were entitled to protections for minority institutions under
Article 30 of the Constitution.

9
The judgment in the DAV College etc. vs State of Punjab case was delivered on May 5, 1971. The Supreme
Court held that the notification under which the colleges were affiliated to the universities was legally valid.
This meant that from the specified date, the petitioner colleges ceased to be affiliated to the Punjab University.
The case involved a challenge to the constitutional validity of certain sections of the Guru Nanak University,
Amritsar, Act, 1969.The petitioners, DAV College, argued that their fundamental rights were violated by the
provisions of the Act. However, the Supreme Court found that none of the provisions of the Act offended any
fundamental rights of the petitioners.

The court also held that it was not necessary to decide the question of legislative competence if the law
impugned did not affect the fundamental rights of the petitioners. Additionally, the court stated that in a
petition under Article 32, once it is alleged and a prima facie case is made out that the fundamental rights of
a citizen are threatened or violated, the court is bound to entertain it and go into the question of legislative
competence, if raised.

Conclusion –
In the landmark case of DAV College etc. vs State of Punjab, the Supreme Court of India delivered a verdict
that upheld the validity of the Punjab Government’s decision to affiliate certain colleges, including DAV
College, to Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar, instead of Punjab University.
The court’s decision brought an end to the dispute between the colleges and the state government, which had
been ongoing for several years. The judgment validated the government’s action and provided clarity on the
issue of affiliation of colleges to universities.
The court held that the Punjab Government had the authority to issue the notification affiliating the colleges
to Guru Nanak Dev University. The government’s decision was found to be in accordance with the provisions
of the Punjab University Act, 1947, and the Guru Nanak Dev University Act, 1969.
The court also rejected the contention of the colleges that the decision violated their fundamental rights. The
colleges had argued that the decision affected their autonomy and academic freedom, but the court found that
the decision did not impinge on these rights.
The judgment emphasized the importance of the government’s role in regulating education and ensuring that
institutions of higher learning conform to certain standards. The court recognized that the government has a
legitimate interest in ensuring that education is provided in a fair and equitable manner.
In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s verdict in DAV College etc. vs State of Punjab case provided clarity on
the issue of affiliation of colleges to universities and validated the government’s decision. The judgment
emphasized the importance of the government’s role in regulating education and ensuring that institutions of
higher learning conform to certain standards. The decision has had significant implications for the education
sector in India and has helped to establish the boundaries of government regulation in this area.4
Militate against the claim of the State to insist that in order to grant aid the State may prescribe reasonable
regulations to ensure the excellence of the institution to be aided”.

4
https//indiankanoon.com ,https://www.casemine.com
10
Section 5(1)-The State Government may, by Notification specify the limits of the area in which the University
shall exercise its powers and perform its duties.
(2) Not withstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, no educational institution
beyond the limits of the area specified under subsection (1) shall be associated with or admitted to any
privileges of the University.
(3)Not withstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, any educational institution
situated within the limits of the area specified under sub-section (1) shall, with effect from such date as may
be notified in this behalf by the State Government be deemed to be associated with and admitted to the
privileges of the University and shall cease to be associated in any way with, or be admitted to any privileges
of the Punjab University; and different dates may be appointed for different institutions.

The contention of the Petitioners Is that since under Section 72 of the Reorganisation Act it is the Central
Government which is vested with the power to issue directions in respect of the Punjab University or the
Punjab Agricultural University and/or to amend and alter the provisions of the Punjab University Act or the
Punjab Agricultural University Act, the State Legislature is not competent to legislate in respect of the said
University or Universities without the necessary directions of the Central Government. This is sought to be
justified on the ground.
It is apparent therefore that the validity or the invalidity of the impugned law. On the ground of legislative
competence should purport to infringe the fundamental rights of the petitioner as a necessary condition of its
being adjudicated. But if in fact the law does not, even on the assumption that it is valid, infringe any
fundamental rights, this Court will not decide that question in a petition under Article 32. The reason for it is
obvious, namely that no petition under Article 32 will be entertained if fundamental rights are not affected and
if the impugned law does not affect the fundamental rights it would be contrary to this principle to determine
whether that law in fact has legislative competence or not.

As in this case we have founded it to be so, it is not necessary to go into the question of legislative competence
or to decide on the validity of Section 5.

We have therefore no hesitation in holding that the notification under which the Colleges have been affiliated
to the Universities is legally valid and from the date specified therein Petitioners Colleges cease to be affiliated
to the Punjab University. In the result these petitions are allowed to the extent that clause 2(1) (a) and Clause
17 of Chapter V of the statutes are struck down as affecting the fundamental rights of the petitioners, but in
the circumstances without costs

11
 Bibliography -

Websites:
https://indiankanoon.com
Https://casemine.com
https://lawbhoomi.com
https://thelawmatics.com

12